Reflections on how knowledge triggers social change

By Hermine Engel (PlanAct)

Additional tags: Social change , Knowledge

Appointed as a “tracker” to assist in synthesizing our very rich discussions during the three days of the Dialogue, I found myself absorbed in the question: “How does knowledge trigger social change?” Through observation and conversations with various participants, the recurrent responses took the form of the following statements: “Crisis leads to change”, “Subversion is the starting point of change”, “Inspiration leads to change”, “Knowledge coupled with resources and cooperation leads to change.”

These statements indicate that we should perhaps think of the question in a different way since, as it stands, it prompts a linear way of thinking that “knowledge triggers change”. Our discussions have instead reinforced the idea that it is more about how knowledge and change interact, also considering how knowledge is produced and where it resides.

We have acknowledged and agreed that multiple knowledge(s) exist and that it includes a range of perspectives and experiences. Now we need to broaden our understanding and use these multiple knowledges strategically by constantly reflecting critically on our understanding and application. This is important so that knowledge can be used more purposefully and ethically as a political tool, starting from a point of ‘internal consciousness’ as indicated by a fellow participant.

These thoughts return us then to the opening remarks made at the start of the dialogue by Micheal Edwards where he emphasized that we need to rebalance the content and methods of knowledge production and, as emphasized through our subsequent discussions, broaden and sharpen our understanding of the actors involved and the purpose of knowledge. To borrow from and add to Edwards’ expressions, in summary the Dialogue has afforded us the opportunity to critically consider these aspects as follows:

· “Know what” - the relevance of information, ideas and perspectives;

· “Know how” - the method and the power to use knowledge effectively with flexibility;

· “Know who” - the importance of understanding the different, relevant actors;

· “For what” - the purpose – moving us to strategic actions leading to positive change

But what kind of positive change are we talking about?

The key questions I therefore believe we need to continue to struggle with include the following:

· How do we address the broader structural / systemic changes required in relation to the global, geopolitical issues which ultimately affect our local struggles?

· How do we invest in long term, sustainable processes of rigorous interaction between knowledge and change as opposed to ‘quick fixes’ in light of the sense of urgency required as we face our current development dilemmas?

It is hoped that these questions and the many others we have deliberated on during the dialogue, will recommit us to the important considerations of commitment, collective action, resources, cooperation and innovation in the continuous critical interaction between knowledge and change.